uh... why?
i'm talking more about intent. it is obvious that plagarism happened. but looking at how he writes his articles traditionally, it's a tough call on whether he did it intentionally or if it was an oversight.
SW has a pattern of either having the "dateline" at the beginning, which leads one back to the source, or he starts with a line like "yesterday, i saw an article here..." or "on good morning america today, they said..." (both examples are paraphrases). here, we had none of that, just a little "add on" in the beginning, which to me, looks like the work is being displayed as orig.
i tried to go back to check on some more articles, and see if we have any "pattern" of plagarism. i guess what i meant by "i'm not ready to convict" is that everyone can get "1 bad" or "mulligan" in my book, regardless of their political or other leanings. but if there is a pattern,,,that's another matter.
but unlike others, i applaud you, baker, in calling this one out.
but i think you know that i am not (typically) a "rush to judgement" type. if this was a 1 time flub, i am willing to move on. if not, that's another matter. if i was that type, everyone knows that shadow and i have battled over politics and the war in particular in the past and this would be an opportunity that if i was like the severe right or left wingers on here, i would be piling on and making a huge stink. but i'm not, and merely interested in the facts of the case.